All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[StevSmar]

I came across this nicely colourized photo on Faceplant and noticed that the gunsight bead seems to have a style of fitting that I've not seen before:

Thought it would be of interest to others. Hope everyone is having a great July!!! Crazily hot and dry in Manitoba.

Edited July 17, 2021 by StevSmar
Couldn't refind the image on FB, adjusted the description

[72modeler]

4 hours ago, StevSmar said:

I came across this nicely colourized photo on Faceplant and noticed that the gunsight bead seems to have a style of fitting that I've not seen before:

Thought it would be of interest to others. Hope everyone is having a great July!!! Crazily hot and dry in Manitoba.

Might it have something to do with deflection shooting angles?

Mike

[Graham Boak]

It may be an indicator for sideslip to help correct the aim.  I've not seen anything like it before.

[Troy Smith]

5 hours ago, StevSmar said:

I came across this nicely colourized photo

it's not. Looks like some of the modern paint sets. It's far far too bright and light

it should look like this, much darker and less saturated colours, and dull blue and red roundels

Spitfire in England by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

I am beginning to find colourised images tiresome.  

BTW, the is P3886, one of the 50 mid 1940 fabric winged planes. Usually quoted as being UF-K,  but I saw that this is wrong.  Again, that was on farcebook,  which is back hole for then refinding these fragments. 

 

 

5 hours ago, StevSmar said:

on Faceplant and noticed that the gunsight bead seems to have a style of fitting that I've not seen before:

This has been discussed before, on here, and possibly on Camm Followers on farcebook.   I'm trying to remember more, I think Chris @dogsbody has more images, and may remember more, but the offset sight was seen on other planes, why, I don't know,  especially when seen on planes with reflector sights.

 

I'm a bit tired, so may remember more on this later. 

cheers

T

[StevSmar]

16 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

it's not. Looks like some of the modern paint sets. It's far far too bright and light.

LOL- you’re so picky!

 

I did recognize that the colours were likely not up to Troy standard, so it would have been more correct for me to say “I came across this colourized photo that nicely makes the original black and white photo come alive- even though the colours are not likely to be historically correct, to add further salt into the wound nor have they depicted the chipping on the wing very well mistaking large swaths of area for mud. But in spite of it’s inaccuracies it does highlight the interesting bead sight which I hadn’t noticed before in the black and white version, so at least the inaccurate colourization highlighted this detail and for that I’m thankful. But I recognize others may not share my enthusiasm”

 

(In jest, hope my sense of humour doesn’t offend)

[dogsbody]

On 17/07/2021 at 11:21, StevSmar said:

I came across this nicely colourized photo on Faceplant and noticed that the gunsight bead seems to have a style of fitting that I've not seen before:

Thought it would be of interest to others. Hope everyone is having a great July!!! Crazily hot and dry in Manitoba.

 

I first noticed that style of sight and posted it here 2 years ago.

 

 

 

Chris

 

[tank152]

On 17/07/2021 at 18:21, StevSmar said:

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

I am beginning to find colourised images tiresome.  

cheers

T

Badly colourised it maybe, i'm no fan of them either. 

 

  On 28/06/2021 at 00:24, Lindsey C said:

I want the BoB aircraft to look fairly worn/constantly used since these were desperate times and the only thing on ground crews minds was keeping aircraft in the air rather than touching up paint and aesthetics

This is a myth.   

Many planes just didn't last long enough to ever get very worn. 

 

However..... look at all that lovely weathering on show. 😉

 

A friend of mine lived and still does, not far from Hawkinge and he has always maintained that compared to the 109s that were brought down in that area during the BOB our Hurricanes and Spits were genuinely in a worse condition.

He has told me the over riding thing he remembers about the 109s he observed , (at crash sites)was they were always immaculately kept and had always got that dope like smell to them.

As an aside one of his daughters has got her hairdressers shop in Elham the village that is featured in A Harvest Of Messerschmitts. I believe it's  in the old post office where Mary Smith lived who kept the diary the book is based around.

[Graham Boak]

Of course some aircraft got tatty and heavily weathered, being left out in all weathers and not looked after like modern vintage cars.  However choosing a badly-colourised picture to illustrate that doesn't help the case.  There are at least as many in-service pictures showing these fighters not "heavily weathered" - a bit stained and worn yes.  Take a look at the recent works on the Spitfire in Polish units from Stratus.

[tank152]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Of course some aircraft got tatty and heavily weathered, being left out in all weathers and not looked after like modern vintage cars.  However choosing a badly-colourised picture to illustrate that doesn't help the case.  There are at least as many in-service pictures showing these fighters not "heavily weathered" - a bit stained and worn yes.  Take a look at the recent works on the Spitfire in Polish units from Stratus.

Ah, so all that flaking paint on the top of the cowl would miraculously disappear if it wasn't colourised would it 🤔

As for the condition of the wings I don't suppose making a wheels up landing has helped! Or is that an optical illusion?

The wing looks as if it's on the ground yet surely if it made a wheels up landing that foot step would be crumpled up! 

The more I look at that photo the more it looks odd.

 

I know there's plenty of tatty stuff on show in those 303sqd series of books that Red Kite/Wing Leader have done

Not had chance to look through your mentioned books yet.

 

Like I said though, i'm no fan of colourised photos, and there are more and more cropping up. Personally I think they're far worse than badly done profiles. 

[224 Peter]

Grass fields and heavy rain soon apply a lot of muck to an aircraft. Paul Richey in his books makes particular reference to the mud during the phoney war in France. I'm sure some of the UK fighter bases were no better. 

As to the flaking paint, I'd like to see the original BW photo: it is possible that the negative had degraded giving the impression of flaking. 

I agree, the colours are just wrong. 

[spitfire]

1 hour ago, 224 Peter said:

Grass fields and heavy rain soon apply a lot of muck to an aircraft. Paul Richey in his books makes particular reference to the mud during the phoney war in France. I'm sure some of the UK fighter bases were no better. 

As to the flaking paint, I'd like to see the original BW photo: it is possible that the negative had degraded giving the impression of flaking. 

I agree, the colours are just wrong. 

 

There you go.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

[BillF67]

So,

 

Mk 1 Hurricane “Winged Popeye”, N259, YB - J was, from what I can discover, at least built as a fabric wing. Modellers Data File cites it as one of 300 Hawker built machines delivered between 29/9/39 and 1/5/40. The first 80 had fabric wings and I believe N2359 is one of these. 
 

Looking at the graphic however (P56) and the various box arts, the aerial as shown is wrong. Troy kindly posted some photos of YB J showing it with an earlier “post” type.

 

Am I OK to use the new Airfix Mk1 but make a different aerial  (Even I can do that)?

 

Thanks

 

Bill

[Graham Boak]

I thought that the Airfix kit did have the pole aerial mounting?  However, it is not impossible that it had been replaced for some reason.  Either way, there are more things to look out for on the kit.  Wheel hubs, fabric panels that should be metal, and whether the top and bottom wings actually match up.  I'd be interested in your comments on the latter point, as many modellers don't seem to have noticed it.

[BillF67]

Graham

 

I wouldn't know about the wheel hubs or the panelling. However, I found that to get the wings very nearly almost matched, I had to remind them of the dihedral by lightly weighting them whilst setting. The minimal overlap came off with some light sanding. Dry fitting to the fuselage looks really good. Lucky me perhaps?

 

Checked the kit. You are right about the aerial, I am an idiot (me and Modeller's Datafile too).

[Graham Boak]

Thanks for that - I didn't bother about dihedral because this is built in to the lower wing.  I glue the wings together first.  Aligning the gunports and ailerons top and bottom gave quite a considerable overlap at the tips and all along the leading edge.  Fairly heavy sanding.  I then had no trouble fitting the wings onto the fuselage.  Some people did, and although this could have been Airfix's common problem with oversized interiors, I have wondered whether they matched the outer shapes of the wings and never bothered looking elsewhere.  So your comments are interesting.  I decided I didn't need to buy another to check personally, which means I do have most of the Xtradecal sheet available to a good home.

 

The hub has the wrong number of spokes: five instead of four  (or vice versa - I forget).   The panel behind the gun access should be metal so the armourers can kneel on it.  So should the inboard panel at the rear of the starboard wing, presumably for the rigger to help the pilot fasten his straps from that side.  A smear of Surfacer solved the basic problems, and there was a set of wheels available - or more than one, but one meant to match the Airfix square hole so that the (exaggerated) flats are at the bottom. 

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, BillF67 said:

Modellers Data File cites it as one of 300 Hawker built machines delivered between 29/9/39 and 1/5/40. The first 80 had fabric wings and I believe N2359 is one of these. 
 

Much Hurricane detail info is wrong.  Not sure about N2359,  I'll need to check. 

Checked.  No detail in my list.  But note, in the L****, they built fabric and metal wings at the same time.   

 

Here the pic you don't usually see

shows the 5 spoke wheel, pole antenna, DH Hurricane prop, 6 inch high serial, and standard windscreen with internal armour (straight lower edge), all consistent with a N**** production plane.

Should also lack 2nd hatch on starboard side. 

and the one you do.  The darker 'YB' is likely from the panel being 'cleaned' when off the aircraft, and the gunk just being smeared about.... or it being off, and the other bits getting a clean and this being left out.... 

 

 

Here's a thread I did, and partly forgot

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235048032-17-squadron-hurricanes-bob-marking-detail/

 

Needs revision, as the 17 Sq flickr was not available when i did that.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, BillF67 said:

and Modeller's Datafile too).

OK, the Modellers Datafile, and the recent (2020) Valiant Wings Airframe and Miniature, by the same author, Richard Franks,  really reallyannoy me, they are not to be trusted.

I have the datafile as pdf, and I'm not going to waste cash on buying a hard copy unless really cheap.  the AFAM seems to to a very green publication, as most of it seems recycled....  in a word. Shoddy.

Has the occasional useful picture, but has some quite incredible howlers.    

Full of mistakes, ommisions and downright cobblers.  Avoid.

 

Best book for the Hurricane Mk.I is the Wingleader photo book, which is excellent, only a very occasional question/quibble on the odd point, and lots of photos and information only in here.

https://www.wingleader.co.uk/shop/hurricane-mki-wpa3

has a pdf sampler if you want to get an idea.

 

I'll add more if later if anything come to mind...

 

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

The hub has the wrong number of spokes: five instead of four  (or vice versa - I forget). 

Airfix fabric wing has 4 spoke hubs, but the wheels are oversize. Try fitting them into the wing....

Quote

 The panel behind the gun access should be metal so the armourers can kneel on it.

yes.

Quote

  So should the inboard panel at the rear of the starboard wing, presumably for the rigger to help the pilot fasten his straps from that side. 

No, this panel on early Hurricane is fabric covered.

Hurricane17sqdamaged_zps9106b20e by losethekibble, on Flickr

I don't know when it changed,  or if it got reskinned if a plane got rewinged,  or, if this became metal as standard when metal wings started being used in the L****

My guess is that it was changed somewhere in the L**** production,  and metal became standard from then on.

 

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

I then had no trouble fitting the wings onto the fuselage.  Some people did, and although this could have been Airfix's common problem with oversized interiors,

More often misalignment of front spar, and UC bay, easy to do, and not notice.  Trick is to tape together the upper and lower wings as to use as a jig, get parts in right place, and then use a tiny amount of liquid glue to fix to lower wing, but the wing outer panel misalignment is odd.

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

which means I do have most of the Xtradecal sheet available to a good home.

sent an email to a blueyonder address I have for you....

 

cheers

T

[Chuck1945]

I just got the 1/72 Arma Tropical Hurricane IIb and am thinking to build it using the markings option for Z5659, WK L (P/O Jack Storey, 135 Sqd, Burma early 1942). My question is about the outboard pair of guns in each wing; should they be there? I vaguely recall reading that they were often removed to improve handling and my set of Shores’ books about the war in Burma are packed away.

[Graham Boak]

They were often removed, for example I do not recall seeing them on any 607 Sq Hurricane in India, but actually in Burma in the very early days is quite another matter.  Partly a matter of time, and partly because it was not yet realised quite how manoeuvrable the opposition was.  I don't recall any particular comment in Shores, or indeed in other works by pilots out there (Storey or Stone, or both) which I would suggest implies that the aircraft were as standard - i.e. 12 mgs.  We do know that the Japanese were impressed with the firepower of the Hurricane but whether that need imply 12 rather than 8 is another matter.

 

Looking in Bloody Shambles vol 2, I fund two relevant photos.  One is credited to Storey, and shows WK.E (BG843).  A poor photo, but there's a dark spot outboard on the wing.  The other shows the wreck of Stout's aircraft, with very clearly a machine gun about level with the underwing roundel.  So from these I would definitely say 12 guns.

[Chuck1945]

Thanks, my first thought had been to omit them, my second was that it was early enough in the campaign that removal was not yet considered. Your comments and reference to photos definitely support the latter.

[StevSmar]

On 7/18/2021 at 1:23 PM, dogsbody said:

…I  first noticed that style of sight and posted it here 2 years ago…Chris

I think in the future if we want something to be noticed, it needs to be badly colourized, it’s unexpectedly worked for me…LOL.

 

(Hope you’re staying safe in the fires)

[dogsbody]

Just now, StevSmar said:

I think in the future if we want something to be noticed, it needs to be badly colourized, it’s unexpectedly worked for me…LOL.

 

(Hope you’re staying safe in the fires)

 

No fires up here this year, though it has been quite smokey a few times. Right now, it's good.

 

 

 

Chris

[Sydhuey]

On 4/6/2021 at 10:20 PM, Magpie22 said:

I’ve come upon this thread a bit late as I have been ‘hors de combat’ for a week or two.

William John Storey, preferred name Jack, a school teacher when war came, enlisted in the RAAF in September 1940, at the age of 24. He did his basic training in Australia and his advanced training in Canada, being commissioned as a Pilot Officer. He arrived in the UK at the end of July 1941 and, after converting to Hurricanes with No. 59 OTU, he was posted to No. 135 Squadron RAF in September 1941.

 

Shortly after, the squadron was deployed overseas to Mingaldon, Burma, arriving there in mid-January 1942. In the meantime, Jack had been promoted to Temporary Flying Officer. The squadron’s aircraft took some time to prepare, and the pilots initially flew aircraft from No. 17 Sqn. Jack scored his first victory, a Nakajima Ki-27 ‘Nate’, on 29 January, in BD921, a No. 17 Sqn Hurricane.

 

Shortly after, the squadron received its full complement of aircraft and, Jack adopted Z5659, a Gloster built Mk. IIB, as his and had it coded ‘C’. More success came on 6 February when he destroyed two more ‘Nates’. He followed this up with yet another ‘Nate’ on 23 Feb, flying Z5659 yet again. Four down in less than a month!

 

The squadron had been flying continuous operations throughout February and, in March it was forced to withdraw to Akyab. Here they encountered the Japanese Air Force’s top fighter, the KI-43 Hayabusa, ‘Oscar’. Jack’s airmanship and leadership had been noted and, on 2 March he was promoted to Acting Flight Lieutenant and given command of ‘A’ Flight. He had also acquired a new ‘C’, AP894, a Hurricane Mk. IIB, built by the Austin Motor Co Ltd.

 

On the morning of 5 March, he led ‘A’ Flight off on patrol and encountered three ‘Oscars’ at 20,000 ft. He led the flight into attack, claiming one ‘Oscar’ himself. After returning, the flight was ordered off again shortly after noon and encountered three more ‘Oscars’ at about 21,000 ft. Jack led Red and White sections into attack, with Yellow section remaining as top cover. He attacked one Oscar, opening fire from about 150 yards and closing in to 20 yards. The aircraft rolled over into a dive and he followed it down, seeing it impact the ground. Climbing back up, he encountered another ‘Oscar’ at about 13,000 ft and attacked, again closing in to 20 yards. The pilot of the ‘Oscar’ rolled on to his back and bailed out. This brought his tally up to seven scored in five weeks. His last victory, another ‘Oscar’ was claimed two months later on 5 May, again flying AP894.

 

Jack stayed with the squadron until mid-1943 when he joined No. 1572 Flight as a gunnery instructor. One other ‘C’ that Jack flew with No 135 Sqn was BN163, a Hurricane NF. Mk.IIB, that was with the squadron from mid-1942. Jack saw no combat in this aircraft.

 

After he was repatriated to Australia in March 1944, he was promoted to Squadron Leader and made CFI of the gunnery flight at Central Gunnery School, his appointment being terminated in September 1945. He went back to teaching, later becoming a school principal and then a senior officer in the Victorian Education Department.

 

I was privileged to interview Jack in the late 1960s and he described three of his aircraft to me. I leave it to the reader to assign the correct RAF colour names to Jack’s descriptions. None of his aircraft carried a personal emblem or victory scoreboard.

 

Z5659

Flown in February 1942.

Jack described this as finished in brown and green with a light blue-grey under surface. The spinner was black, (he said ‘A’ Flight had black spinners and ‘B’ Flight white spinner). The serial was black and the codes grey. As mentioned in an earlier post this aircraft is illustrated in colour, (incorrectly in desert camouflage, in my opinion), on the back of the Kookaburra booklet, Hawker Hurricane Described by Francis Mason. This aircraft carried the full code WKoC.

 

 

AP894

Flown from March to June 1942.

This was also described as being brown and green. He described the spinner as being maroon. This latter would seem to tie in with the description he gives on the tape as ‘plum’. It was ta this time that Storey took command of ‘A’ Flight, so could have instituted the colour change at that time. The photo clearly shows a non-standard pattern camouflage, particularly around the cockpit area. Note the Flight Lieutenant stripes on Jack's shoulders.

 

 

BN163

Flown from July 1942 to 1943.

Also described as being brown and green, spinner black. It had a maroon tip on the fin. Jack flew a number of night patrols in this aircraft.

 

 

Peter I'm pretty sure IIB AP894 was flown in 43 not 42  it had the interim white markings

[Magpie22]

Syd, you are correct. Jack flew AP895 from March to June 1943. I'm not sure why I got the years wrong - possibly got a bit confused when I mentioned his two stripes.

He became an Acting Flight Lieutenant in March 42, and was confirmed as a Temporary Flight Lieutenant in May 1943.

In my fifth paragraph I also omitted to put the year in the date of his DFC winning action. This was March 1943.

Apologies to all for the error. I can only plead advanced senility!

Peter M

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Magpie22

[Peter Roberts]

I missed your original post Peter. Thanks so much for posting that info - I have a Storey Hurricane to build so much appreciated.

 

You have indeed been so privileged to speak with so may great pilots, very good of you to pass on the info.

 

 

[Chuck1945]

I can really relate to that cartoon! I’m building the Arma Hurricane IIb and will use their markings for Storey’s Hurricane in February 1942.